Content vs Quality of Content

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Itunes has been providing AAC at 128k for far to long. Apple needs to bump this up. I know that some claim that AAC 128k is better than MP3 128k, but still, they could pull further away from the rest of the back by bumping this quailty level. They should do it now before the catelog gets even larger. Lets start with a bump to 192k then increase the level each year. With HD digital radio/music disks on the horizon, this is imparative.





As for movies, I am at a loss on why apple would encode at "near DVD" quality levels when BR and HD DVD are now out. I can't image the download time is substantially different. I would imagine probably an under 10 minutes difference which no one is going to really care about if one can start playing after the first couple minutes of the download. The ipod's are certianly not going to be filling up any time soon with the ever expanding hard drive size's coming out every 6-9 months. I just don't get why after I spend big money on the HD TV, buy up for the HD cable channels, get the new hi-def dvd player, get the comcast HD DVR or Tivo Series 3 HD PVR, HDMI everything, etc, then revert all the way back down to "near DVD" quality for the DVD content itself. If I am going to spend money on HD, that is exactly what I want,-- HD.



Apple, please stop sucking the quality out of content. Thanks

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 3
    192 VBR versus 128 VBR provides no noticeable benefits. Already areas where more sonic detail are needed get the extra bandwidth.



    A switch to lossless, or something closer to DVD audio, would be nice, but I'm not going to lie and say I would be able to hear a difference.
  • Reply 2 of 3
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I don't get it. If the file size for HD video isn't appreciably any larger, then how can the quality be any better? Maybe someone can provide a more exact number, but I believe an HD movie would be about 10 times the size of what Apple currently sells.
  • Reply 3 of 3
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    For HD video, the file sizes would be quite a bit larger. The dl time would quite a bit longer. I don't know where you would be getting this "I can't imagine it would be much longer" idea (not you BRussell, the OP).



    HD is coming along, but only 7% of American households currently own an HD set, up from about 4% last year, so it's not like Apple is in danger of alienating the television viewing public, any time soon.



    And bear in mind that of that 7%, virtually none have access to any prerecorded HD content. DVDs, which the iTS does a credible job of matching up to, are by a massive margain what people are used to for "rented" or "purchased" content, pay-for-view HD notwithstanding.



    Myself, I don't get why there is so much "OMG, Apple can't offer SD video in this day in age" whinging about, when "this day and age" means, and will continue to mean for most people for quite a while yet, DVD and SD cable, or DVD and HD cable with limited HD offering.



    Apple's video download service isn't exactly being introduced into this ubiquitous HD world that people seem to imagine.
Sign In or Register to comment.